Decisions Decisions Decisions 300D vs 20D

Still undecided on these two cameras, can afford a 300D ($1600NZ) no problems, however will I feel the need to upgrade? As I am used to an EOS30, and frequently fill my frame buffer on my G3, I think this is a distinct possibility. So I could go a 20D ($2800NZ), both of these cameras come with the same kit lens, which I would need to fill out the wide end that my current 28-105 would not fulfil.

It is just that my wallet won’t (nor my wife) wear the cost of a 20D, I could do it at a push, but I will have to borrow the difference.

The way I see it the 20D would be a good base, and would fulfil all my needs for some time, and as my wife pointed out she doesn’t want me buying a 300D and turning around in 12 months wanting to upgrade. This thing needs to last me at least three years.

One final thing, good luck getting a 20D down these parts, there are waiting lists everywhere for them!

Pearls of Wisdom please!!!!!

I was in the same shoes you were not even a year ago (300D vs 10D)

I went with the 300D, in less then 9 months i was looking for a used 1D.

Thus my only advice to you is to get the 20D now.

The 20D is still fairly early in it's life cycle. The 300D is almost at the end. You'll find yourself with a white elephant much sooner if you buy the 300D. On the other hand, you can get some killer deals on Rebels right now (except the black one), so maybe that makes up for it.

Belmondo - take off my high school pic from you avatar!!!

Back to the topic...........the 300D is a good starter camera. BUT!!! the 20D is just amazing!!! If you can afford it, I will go for the 20D.

Ro1

Sounds like you want the 20D. Get it!
The price is not too bad either.
It'll probably make more sense financially in the long term
to get the 20D now rather than buy 300 and upgrade.
A second-hand 10D could also be an option.


J.
-

300D = Good starter camera. That is a very good point. I believe I am beyond that now, I cut my teeth on an OM1, and have had 5 SLR's since them.

We were out last night, and I ran into a photographer that specialised in child potraits, Ann Geddes sort of stuff. I asked here what she used, she said she had a 300D and loved it, unfortunaly my wife heard that and thanked her for saving us $1200!!!

I htink I'll park my $$$ for a month or so until I can actually get my hands on a 20D and have an actual play.

I am fairly certain it is the camera that will last me 3 years!

Looked at that, the issue there is glass. I would need to fork out for a ultra wide angle lens as the 18-55 doesn't normally fit (not sure I want to hack the back off one!).

I will probably mainly use the 28-105, but I don't want to be caught out at the wide end. One of the shots had a mint 10d for $2000NZ, no lens might be a potential starter?

Flying Pete, I got my 300D from http://parallelimporte​d.co.nz/ for $1500 a couple of weeks back. According to http://pricespy.co.nz that's the best deal in the country.

Forget about buying a 20D in New Zealand, they're like hens teeth. If you look on http://froogle.com you can get a much better deal from the states. Only problem is you might have to jump thru hoops to get it, or get a friend in the states to do it for you. Also beware of dodgy places who take your cash and don't ship a camera - make sure you pay by credit card, for your protection, if you go via this route.

The 20D would definitely be the better camera, but have a read of the http://dpreview.com review. It says image quality is a little better, not worth upgrading to for 10D owners, but probably good for new purchasers. The main advantages I can see are 0.2sec startup time vs 3 sec, more rugged body, higher frame rate, and general improvements. If those things are worth around NZ$1000 to you, definitely go for it. It's going to last you a lot longer.

The 300D's great. I'll probably keep it until Canon release a 35mm digital - or for at least a couple of years. btw the expensive part of a camera seems to be the lenses, not the camera. Take that into account when you're budgeting. I bought from http://bhphotovideo.co​m/ , they ship to NZ no problems.

The 20D is definitely the better camera, but it also costs more then double. If you are on a budget, go with the rebel . At least that way you can afford to put a half decent lens on the thing.

Cheers.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but you should be able to get photos that are 95% as good with the 300D. It might take a little more effort from you, perhaps, but you might learn more.

[QUOTE="FlyingPete"]

I would go with a used (but mint) 10D and the lens you have.
Always go for the best and most up-to-date you can afford.
You can get a wider angle lens some other time.

After one year my 10D had about 9000 shutter actuations and was
like new, no complaints. If you buy from a shop you may even get
something like a three months guarantee.

J.
-

Take a look at the Tokina 17/3.5 prime lens that received a lot of praise recently (look for drisley's thread).

In addition to the 28-105, it might take care of your wide angle needs.

Best regards,
Andy

You've got to answer some questions you didn't ask:

How big are the prints you want to make? If they are 12x18 inches or bigger you will see a small improvement in resolution with the 20D

Do you need to take picture immediately after your turn the camera on, or can you wait a few seconds? If you can wait the 300D is OK.

Do you shoot sports or wildlife where you need fast tracking auto-focus, and more frames per second? If you can't live without speed the 20D is a better answer.

Do you do a lot of macro photography where you need depth of field preview and mirror lock-up to get good sharp photos. I'm not sure what the D300 has, but I know the 20D has these features.

Do you care whether your camera is silver or black? They may be selling a black D300, but I haven't seen it yet.

How much depreciation can you afford? The D20 is the current rage, but in three or four years it will be old news and the value will decline much more than the D300 is worth now.

How serious are you about photography? The D20 should satisfy advanced photographers who would be a little frustrated using the D300.

Remember, a good photographer can adapt to the limitations of a D300 and take great photos. If you get the D300 and don't get good photos, don't blame the camera. On the other hand, it is very easy to take terrible photos with a 20D too.

You already know you want to get the 20d. It is a smaller step up to get the 20d now than it will be to buy a 300d and turn around in a few months and buy a 20 later.
This comes from a person who wishes now that he would have taken his own advise.

Good luck

The answers

- How big are the prints you want to make? If they are 12x18 inches or bigger you will see a small improvement in resolution with the 20D
Not so important, have required higher than my current G3's 4MP though from time to time, mainly for product shots

- Do you need to take picture immediately after your turn the camera on, or can you wait a few seconds? If you can wait the 300D is OK.
I have lost shots due to slow 'boot' times, esspecially if the camera has gone into power save, I understand the 300D is an improvement on the G3, my EOS30 is good to go imediately.

- Do you shoot sports or wildlife where you need fast tracking auto-focus, and more frames per second? If you can't live without speed the 20D is a better answer.
Fast tracking of moving objects has never been a requirement, hoever I will often use the rapid fire feature to capture someone who is about to do something interesting, this above all other things is what concerns me the most about the 300D.

- Do you do a lot of macro photography where you need depth of field preview and mirror lock-up to get good sharp photos. I'm not sure what the D300 has, but I know the 20D has these features.
Yes, and I do use the mirror lock up on my EOS30, however apparantly there is a hack availalbe for the 300D

- Do you care whether your camera is silver or black? They may be selling a black D300, but I haven't seen it yet.
Nah not really, they have had import black 300D's here for sometime, although they cost a couple of hundred dollars more, my EOS50 was silver, I intially wanted a silver EOS30!

- How much depreciation can you afford? The D20 is the current rage, but in three or four years it will be old news and the value will decline much more than the D300 is worth now.
I not so worried about this, I am used to techonogy almost devaluing to zero in three years.

- How serious are you about photography? The D20 should satisfy advanced photographers who would be a little frustrated using the D300.
I know I would miss the easy access to some features on the 300D such as metering modes, I know I will get caught out with the 300D from time to time. I use my G3 a lot, but miss the flexiblity and control of the SLR


- Remember, a good photographer can adapt to the limitations of a D300 and take great photos. If you get the D300 and don't get good photos, don't blame the camera. On the other hand, it is very easy to take terrible photos with a 20D too.
Good point, I know I still will get great shots out of a 300D, many of my G3 and my earlier 2MP Sony shots have been published in various local publications. I was contantly caught out by my 2MP Sony, less so with the G3, but very rarely with the EOS30 (usually only in low light of with the slow telephoto), but you learn how to work around these issues and make best.

I know the 20D is a better fit, esspcially as I am used to the EOS30 (I went through this upgrading from my manual focus SLR to the EOS, 500 vs 50 at that time, I ended up with the 50 and did not regret it, esspcially when I borrowed a 500 from time to time as a second body). It is just the extra $$$!